 |
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Fifty-Seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session
AMENDED
gender
transition procedures; informed consent
(NOW: defamation; elements; review)
Purpose
Establishes statutory criteria for determining when a person commits an act of defamation.
Background
The owner, licensee or operator of a visual or sound radio broadcasting station, or affiliated agents and employees, are not liable for damages for a defamatory statement published or uttered as part of a visual or sound radio broadcast by someone other than the owner, licensee, operator, agent or employee thereof, unless it is alleged and proved that the defendant has failed to exercise due care to prevent publication or utterance of the defamatory statement. Owners, licensees, operators, agents and employees of a station are likewise not liable for damages for defamatory statements published or uttered over the station by or on behalf of a candidate for public office (A.R.S. § 12-652).
Acts that may constitute defamation are typically prosecuted under state tort law. In order to establish defamation under Arizona common law, a publication must be false and must bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or must impeach the plaintiff's honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation (Godbehere v. Phx. Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 341 (1989)).
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state General Fund associated with this legislation.
Provisions
1. States that a person commits defamation if the plaintiff is a private figure, the matter is of private concern and the plaintiff shows all of the following exist:
a) the person publishes a statement that is:
i. provable as false;
ii. reasonably perceived as stating actual facts about the plaintiff rather than imaginative expression or rhetorical hyperbole; and
iii. the person makes the statement with knowledge of its falsity, acts with reckless disregard of the statement's falsity or negligently fails to ascertain the statement's falsity; and
b) the statement, when examined within the full context in which it was made, injures the plaintiff's reputation by doing any of the following:
i. identifying the plaintiff by name;
ii. including a description of or reference to the plaintiff so that those who hear or read the statement reasonably understand the plaintiff to be the subject of the statement; and
iii. implying a clearly defamatory meaning that, when examined within its context, causes the average person to perceive a defamatory message.
2. States that a person commits defamation if the plaintiff is a private figure, the matter is of public concern and the plaintiff shows all of the following exist:
a) the person publishes a statement that the person knows to be false, acts with reckless disregard of the statement's falsity or negligently fails to ascertain the statement's falsity;
b) the person publishes a statement that, when examined within the full context in which it was made, injures the plaintiff's reputation by:
i. identifying the plaintiff by name;
ii. including a description of or reference to the plaintiff so that those who hear or read the statement reasonably understand the plaintiff to be the subject of the statement; and
iii. implying a clearly defamatory meaning that, when examined within its context, causes the average person to perceive a defamatory message; and
c) the published statement is both:
i. provable as false; and
3. States that a person commits if the plaintiff is a public figure, the matter is of public concern and the plaintiff shows all of the following exist:
a) the person publishes a statement that the person knows to be false or acts with reckless disregard of the statement's truth;
b) the person publishes a statement that, when examined within the full context in which it was made, injures the plaintiff's reputation by:
i. identifying the plaintiff by name;
ii. including a description of or reference to the plaintiff so that those who hear or read the statement reasonably understand the plaintiff to be the subject of the statement; and
iii. implying a clearly defamatory meaning that, when examined within its context, causes the average person to perceive a defamatory message; and
c) the published statement is both:
i. provable as false; and
ii. reasonably perceived as stating actual facts about the plaintiff rather than imaginative expression or rhetorical hyperbole.
4. Requires a defamation action involving a defamatory statement that is published on the internet to be commenced within one year of the date the person removes the defamatory statement from the internet site of internet -based platform where the person originally published the defamatory statement.
5. Defines internet-based platform as a:
a) digital service that facilitates user interaction, content creation or information exchange;
b) social media service;
c) content sharing service; or
d) cloud based service.
6. Defines internet.
7. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Amendments Adopted by Committee of the Whole
1. Requires a defamation action involving a defamatory statement that is published on the internet to be commenced within one year of the date that the person removes the defamatory statement from the internet site or internet-based platform where the person originally published the defamatory statement.
2. Defines internet-based platform as a:
a) digital service that facilitates user interaction, content creation or information exchange;
b) social media service;
c) content sharing service; or
d) cloud-based service.
3. Removes the specification that a plaintiff's showing in certain defamation cases is subject to appellate review.
4. Makes technical changes.
Senate Action
RAGE 2/17/26 W/D
JUDE 2/20/26 DPA/SE 4-3-0
Prepared by Senate Research
February 26, 2026
ZD/mg